No. 15,549 Precedential Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Transferred to the Court of Appeal. Processed

Lhote & Co. v. Church Extension Soc. of Methodist Episcopal Church

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 20, 1905 · 39 So. 502

Cited by

Cannella v. Succession of Cannella 43 So. 2d 795 La. 1949
Copellar v. Britt 188 So. 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Falgout v. Johnson 186 So. 349 La. 1939
Gaillardanne v. Locascio 162 So. 69 La. 1935
Bacher v. Krauss 154 So. 733 La. 1934
Louisiana Western Lumber Co. v. Stanford 152 So. 755 La. 1934
Sowers Co. v. Melton 129 So. 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
Williams v. Coleman 127 So. 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State ex rel. Minlocq v. Judge of the Fourth Judicial District Court 18 La. Ann. 398
Hearsey v. Booth 33 La. Ann. 300
Stubbs v. McGuire 33 La. Ann. 1089
Munday v. Lyons 35 La. Ann. 990
Francisco v. Gauthier 35 La. Ann. 393
Smith v. Merchants' Mutual Insurance 33 La. Ann. 1071
Holland v. Duchamp 12 La. Ann. 784
Story v. Jones 14 La. Ann. 73
30 La. Ann. 427 not in our corpus
Gayarre v. Hays 21 La. Ann. 307
Michoud v. Nolan 24 La. Ann. 117
Porée v. Valische 15 La. Ann. 292
Bruneau v. Haughton 16 La. Ann. 47
State ex rel. Williamson v. Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District 30 La. Ann. 314
Singer v. McGuire 40 La. Ann. 638
State ex rel. Adams v. Judges of the Court of Appeals 41 La. Ann. 56
35 La. Ann. 347 not in our corpus
36 La. Ann. 424 not in our corpus
Oglesby v. Helm 26 La. Ann. 61
State ex rel. Levy v. Judge Third City Court 39 La. Ann. 889
Marshall v. Holmes 39 La. Ann. 313
State ex rel. MacKenzie 39 La. Ann. 508

Opinion text

PROVOSTY, J. Plaintiff in Injunction changed its name from Church Extension Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church to Board of Church Extension of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and defendant in injunction, who aimed to sue plaintiff, brought suit and obtained judgment against Church Extension Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church; that is to say, through error, used the old instead of the new name. Execution issued on the judgment, and plaintiff has enjoined same. The judgment is for $700, and the property is worth over $2,000. Defendant in injunction, appellee here, suggests that this court is without jurisdiction ratione materias, and that the case should be transferred to the Court of Appeal, under Act No. 56 of 1904. The suggestion is good. Where the judgment debtor enjoins an execution, the issue is as to the validity of the judgment, and the test of the jurisdiction ratione materise is the amount of the judgment, because that is the amount involved. The case is different where a third person enjoins the execution, for then the issue is as to the ownership of the property seized, and the test of the jurisdiction is the value of the property, because that is the amount involved. State v. Judge, *258 18 La. Ann. 398 ; Hearsey v. Booth, 33 La. Ann. 300 ; Stubbs v. McGuire, 33 La. Ann. 1089 ; Munday v. Lyons, 35 La. Ann. 990 ; Francisco v. Gauthier, 35 La. Ann. 393 ; Smith v. Mutual Ins. Co., 33 La. Ann. 1071 ; Holland v. Duchamp, 12 La. Ann. 784 ; Story v. Jones, 14 La. Ann. 73 ; Cushing y. Sambola, 30 La. Ann. 427 ; Gayarre v. Hays, 21 La. Ann. 307 ; Michoud v. Nolan, 24 La. Ann. 117 ; Poree v. Valische, 15 La. Ann. 292 ; Bruneau v. Haughton, 16 La. Ann. 47 ; State ex rel. Williamson v. Judge, 30 La. Ann. 314 ; Singer v. McGuire, 40 La. Ann. 638 , 4 South. 578 ; State ex rel. Adams v. Judge, 41 La. Ann. 56 , 5 South. 527 ; Denegre v. Moran, 35 La. Ann. 347 ; Id., 36 La. Ann. 424 ; Oglesby v. Helm, 26 La. Ann. 61 ; Mullen v. Zuberbier & Behan, 39 La. Ann. 889 , 2 South. 785 ; Marshal v. Holmes, 39 La. Ann. 313 , 1 South. 610 ; Mackenzie Case, 39 La. Ann. 508 , 2 South.68. Admittedly the judgment was intended to be obtained against the plaintiff in injunction ; hence there can be no question of the seizure being of the property of a third person, and the sole question is as to the validity of the judgment. Of that issue, involving only $700, this court has no jurisdiction; and the case, therefore, must be sent to the Court of Appeal, as suggested. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal of the parish of Orleans, to be there proceeded with according to law, provided that before said transfer is made the appellant or its attorneys of record make oath that the appeal herein was not taken for the purpose of delay; and it is further ordered that said appellants pay the costs of this appeal incurred in this court.